Shop

Video: Ron Paul on ethanol subsidies "I don't think we should do that"

What does Ron Paul think about ethanol subsidies? Ron thinks they are unconstitutional and that allowing farmers to raise hemp is the right solution. Here is Ron's full response, as you can see in the video above, to the question "What are your views and policies on subsidizing ethanol farmers?":

What is my view on subsidizing ethanol and farmers? Under the constitution, there is no authority to take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people for so called economic benefits. So, no, I don't think we should do that. Besides, bureaucrats and the politicians don't know how to invest money. Then that money gets invested for political reasons rather than for economic reasons. I think there is a chance you might get more ethanol if you raised hemp but hemp is illegal in this country. So, in my idea of a free society, you'd be, a farmer would be allowed to raise hemp and not only would that be a good product, possibly to make ethanol, there might be a whole lot of other products you can make with hemp like Canadians do it. So, I am looking to legalize freedom, not more subsidizes and more direction of investments through the federal government because they are incapable of knowing the best investment to make.

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

Anonymous

7 Years Ago

I think it's a shame that Ron Paul is nuts. I love hearing things like this--I'm a big fan of industrial hemp, and I agree with Dr. Paul here.

But Dr. Paul also says that the Civil War was a mistake because the slaves could have been freed peacefully, which shows that he knows almost nothing of history (the Civil War was fought over the Southern secession, not slavery; the slavery issue had to be forced as a result of the war).

So what do I think? I think it'd be a good thing if another candidate listened to what Dr. Paul said here.

And as for what Tim said, I'd just like to point out that just over 200 years ago there was a candidate promising to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. His name was Thomas Jefferson, and once he reached office, he promptly violated that stance by indulging in the Louisiana Purchase, which made America what it is today. Dr. Paul, Tim, and others like them would have us eliminate anything not specifically called for by the Constitution, but that would mean eliminating:

- The Food and Drug Administration
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation
- ALL of the various industry-regulating agencies*
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- The Bureau of Indian Affairs
- The Environmental Protection Agency
- The Department of Education
and hundreds of others that I either don't know about or couldn't remember. See, the Constitution is vague because the Founders knew that the world would change drastically in the future. Remember, not one of them had ever gone faster than a horse could carry them (I believe horses max out at about 40 mph or so). Nor could they conceive of being able to send a message thousands of miles instantaneously. In those days, keeping the government decentralized made a lot more sense. In the much faster-paced world of today, we need a more centralized government that is capable of managing our very large, rapidly changing country. It doesn't do a perfect job. But it does a helluva lot better than a weak, decentralized government would.

(*Admittedly, these have been stolen and put into the hands of the industries they regulate, but that's over in 2009.)

Anonymous

3 Months Ago

Wow, I hadn't realized the Canadians met so much of their energy needs with hemp... it must be some widespread anti-constitutional conspiracy that I see so much greater coverage of their expansion of tar sand developments.

Anonymous

7 Years Ago

The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government NOT grant rights and freedoms to the people because those rights and freedoms are NATURALLY ours and must be protected from usurpation by unscrupulous politicians.

The 10th Amendment strictly forbids the Federal government from doing ANYTHING not specifically allowed by the Constitution. Don't like it? Properly amend the Supreme Law thought the Congress and NOT activist judges who have overstepped their Constitutional balance of powers authority.

The only way the gov't should get involved is to stop monopolies from forming to allow free market competition to choose the best technologies.

Currently, the gov't FUNDS monopolies like big oil and corn ethanol with money (labor, knowledge and lifespan) taken from you and me under threat, duress and coercion.

When you donât resist, the thieves will steal everything you have including your freedoms and ultimately your life.

The NeoCons twist the truth and are even more dangerous to our liberties than the Democratic-Socialists although BOTH groups are spending us into oblivion.

They are BOTH the enemy within! Like the Nazis, they bring tyranny wrapped in a flag and calling for âhomeland security.â Be ready to defend your freedom even if it means using the powers secured for the people by the 2nd Amendment.

What will you do when they label you a âterroristâ and come for you?

Anonymous

3 Months Ago

On the question at hand, Ron Paul is clearly right on target. As a nation, why are we using our laws and tax dollars to keep farmers from growing a viable crop? Then we turn around and use even more tax dollars to convince them to grow a different crop?

Sometime take a look at what the ethanol subsidies have done to the prices of beef due to feed costs, and milk, and cereal, etc. So we pay to police the hemp, then to promote the ethanol, then extra for our groceries. What a sham!

Unfortunately, Mr Paul will never be elected to the presidency because he has been blessed with entirely too much GOOD sense, not common. If he starts looking too good , he will receive death threats, just like Goldwater & Ross Perot and If he DID get in the office of the presidency,he would slowly sink in the quicksands of foggy bottom. 60 years of voting for a president has made me somewhat cynical. Re: hemp---- I would legalize all drugs & then deny care to all abusers, and start alcohol, tobacco & drug education in the first grade. Subsidies are a crime against us taxpayers.

Anonymous

7 Years Ago

Ethanol from hemp? Why not? Hemp is good for many things. And fortunately, the type of hemp used for things like rope, oil, and etc need not be psychoactive, but policymakers in their infinite ignorance don't seem to understand this.

Anonymous

3 Months Ago

He makes some valid points. Hemp could be used for a lot of things and really boost the economy. I think he is more for free market economics; let the best technology win. I hope that technology will be Plug-In hybrids with E85 capability.

Anonymous

3 Months Ago

Allegedly the reason industrial (non-psychotropic) hemp is illegal in the U.S. is because the DEA can't tell the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana so they'll find it hard to enforce a
policy which makes hemp legal but pot illegal.

They're also worried that illicit marijuana farms might be hidden amongst licit hemp farms. Anyone who knows anything about plants would know this would be a disastrous idea for the licit farmer as
the plants would cross-pollinate and destroy the hemp crop. I worry about a government drug-enforcement agency that can't tell the difference between marijuana and hemp.

Both of these reasons for making industrial hemp illegal are downright stupid. They don't have to legalize marijuana to legalize industrial hemp cultivation. The two are mutually-exclusive.
Hopefully our next President and future legislature are more intelligent than those in the past and will take-up the case again.

Oh, and Tim: Stop attacking people who express common sense as being "Commies" just because your far-right beliefs don't agree with them. You're so far right-wing that centrists seem like Communists to you. There are extremists in every society...

The dumbassess making that argument obviously do not know a damn thing about botany. Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana are all the same plant. The buds that grow on the flowers are cannabis, these only grow on the female plants, the buds accept the pollen from the male plants(male plants are almost entirely hemp), and prompts the females to release seeds. No male plants, no seeds, and bigger buds, surround female plants with male plants, smaller buds, and lots of seeds.

Anonymous

3 Months Ago

For those against Ron Paul. The only reason that hemp is not legal is due to the oil barons. Hemp was originally designated as a source for energy for your automobile. Oil barons lobbied to have hemp made illegal with it being named marijuana so they could reap huge benefits from petroleum. Imagine if you were able to grow your own oil in your back yard. What a crime! The same thing happens with medicines. The drug companies don't want us to handle our own health care using fresh organic foods and herbs. What a sin that would be! If you people don't wake up to the good that Ron Paul is able to offer this country, then hell mend you! Use your talents for something besides bashing an honest person. I suggest you go ahead and serve up your children and grandchildren for war too. Better yet, have you enlisted yet?? Put your mouth where your heart seems to be! Also, go ahead and volunteer for the coming of the Federal ID Card - you can take my place in line! Forgive me, I don't suffer fools very easily.